backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 96 comment(s) - last by dluther.. on Sep 13 at 3:36 PM
Researchers on three different continents agree; CO2 is not the devil we once thought.

Last week I reported on a new study by the Belgium Royal Meteorological Institute that stated the effects of CO2 on world temperatures had been "grossly overstated".  The RMI's conclusion is supported by a pair of recent papers, both of which severely downgrade the warming effect of carbon dioxide.

The first is by atmospheric scientist Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Labs.  Entitled, "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System", the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere.  It concludes the IPCC estimate of 2 - 4.5C degrees warming (from the anticipated 1900-2100 doubling of CO2 levels) is much too high, and the actual figure should be closer to 1.1 degree. 

The conclusion is very significant as we've already experienced some 0.7 degrees of that warming.  That means over the next century, only an additional 0.4 degrees warming is expected.   And after that, the warming effect will nearly vanish.

The reason why is CO2 only absorbs in a very narrow band of infrared.  Climatologist Timothy Ball, who was not associated with this study, explains with an analogy:  "The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint."

The second study is by Chinese researchers Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian.  Using a technique called Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD), they decoded temperature changes into three natural cycles-- 6-8 years, 20 years, and 60-years, along with a fourth signal, a non-periodic rising trend, which they associated with CO2-based warming.   They found that the largest effect on temperature change was due to these natural cycles, and that the CO2-based trend could only be responsible for a maximum of 40% of the warming attributed to it. 

Most astonishingly, they concluded that global cooling will result for at least the next two decades, as the longer cycles are now both in downward motion.

The factor all three of the above studies have in common?  That CO2's role has been massively overstated.  The political consequences of this are widespread-- is it worth spending trillions of dollars to reduce emissions of a gas that will have almost no effect over the next century, and essentially none at all after that?


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Accuracy=Questionable
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:13:54 PM , Rating: 5
From your past articles you have made it clear that you are an ardent opponent of the current beliefs among the majority of the scientific community about the state of global warming and climate change.

But I consented to read the papers you cited and see what they said, to get a better understanding of how they drew their conclusion and their probable accuracy.

I read the first paper and was not terribly impressed.

First of all, on scientific grounds the paper rather questionable. Whether its models of heat capacity "beat" other recent models as to how much heat forcing, resulting in temperature increase, has occurred is highly debatable. Secondly, and more importantly, the paper's predictive portions are based largely on many trends today extrapolated linearly, and do not account for scenarios which are likely to fluctuate non linearly, such as population growth. For a far better paper I recently read that actually DOES account for this, read the International Panel on Climate Change's paper, which can be found at:

www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/spmpdf/sres-e.pdf

Simply put, without taking this sort of information into account, the conclusions drawn by the the paper you found are relatively useless in terms of scientific validity.

Secondly, since global warming skeptics such as yourself always question the motives and operation of the scientists who write papers on global warming, I would similarly find it fair to criticize this paper's honesty in terms of its funding. Based on that the paper is established, as I discussed earlier, to make some questionable conclusions, the question is why? Well, it is published by a laboratory that is among 10 currently funded by the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy is an ardent opponent of acknowledging global warming as it is currently headed by Samuel Bodman, a former oil executive with Cabot corporation, a corporation whose dealings are often thought to have incited the second Congo war. Before Bodman was Spencer Abraham, who had an atrocious record, constantly voting in favor of big oil and coal and voting against alternative energy research. My point is that the DOE would gladly fund someone who is challenging the validity of global warming on a shaky scientific basis, in hopes of casting some doubt out there.

Reading the second paper, it is admittedly a "novel approach", and draws its conclusions from this questionable and not widely accepted modelling approach. Also, it too is funded by a notorious advocate of fossil fuel consumption...the Chinese government. China has been constantly criticized for the massibe amounts of CO2 it is producing, so I wonder why they would want to fund a "novel" theory that global warming was not so bad.

Now, I would hope you keep coming across these little paper gems purely because you are "looking for the truth" and just trying to find the facts as much as possible and read as much about the topic as possible. However, the sources you quote in your articles almost always are some relatively obscure study or paper challenging global warming. Now, I find a hard time you would randomly come across these articles unless you were looking for them. Well, let me tell you something about how the world works. Corporations fund research, as do special interests. Usually anti-industry research like global warming faces an incredible amount of special interest dollars. These dollars often put out many pseudo-scientific papers along the lines of "beef can decrease your cholesterol when consumed in moderation!", etc. Now these special interest papers range from truthful and just simply trying to toot their interest's horn, so to speak, to being blatantly false FUD. Most of the articles you have mention smell strongly of FUD.

Now, I know your mind is made up and you will do anything to prove global warming is a farce. But for the rest of you people out there, just do some simple searches online, read the papers that come up, and look at the climate change that is occuring around you. The U.S. is experiencing record heat waves this year and very chaotic weather. Whether climate models are complex and accurate enough to figure out why this is happening is after the fact. It is happening right now and if you want evidence, just look around you. However, if you also want to know the current scientific understanding as to the why this is occuring, as I expect you would, try to get a more balanced view by reading a variety of papers and consider whose dollars are backing the papers you read.




RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By SirLucius on 8/24/2007 1:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
And there are no corporations or special interest groups funding research that supports global warming?

C'mon now...


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:28:35 PM , Rating: 3
What companies would honestly benefit financially from being forced to adding extra scrubbers to their plants and switch to alternative energies?? Sure global warming has its "special interests" alternative energy companies, environmental engineering/pollution management firms and idealists. There is some money in the former two, but compared to the big oil companies and big industrial corporations, they might as well be idealists! My point is that the dollars are on the anti global warming, pro fossil fuel side. Please elaborate if you disagree.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By SirLucius on 8/24/2007 1:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree that there's a large amount of money on the anti-global warming side. But there are also a large number of fairly powerful and influencial organizations pushing the global warming agenda that seem to have enough funds to back a lot of research that makes it to the majority of the public.

My only point is this. You won't see a story like this on your 6 o'clock news. Why? Because those pro-global warming groups are doing a damn good job of getting the support necessary to push their agenda. Money isn't what's driving the global warming agenda anymore - it's politics. Regardless of funds, groups in support of global warming are the ones in more of a position to spew FUD.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By LogicallyGenius on 8/25/2007 11:13:15 AM , Rating: 1
Ya sure since the media is so free that real news gets to the people everyday and there is no ads revenue to worry about.

I wonder how your children live when all trees die sue to over heating, is greed making u so blind that u dont even care of your children's sufferings ?


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Ringold on 8/25/2007 2:29:09 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
when all trees die


'LogicallyGenius' my ass. Come on man. That's exactly the same propaganda I heard when I was still knee-high to a grasshopper and was told that acid rain was going to destroy all the forests in most the world by the time I was as old as I am now.

And guess what? Hardly a damn thing was done and America probably has more forested land now than it did then.

You brought up greed, not the guy you responded to, and thanks for revealing yet again what all this is really about; socialist agendas. Only Sith Lords speak in absolutes, and only socialists whine about "greed".


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Ringold on 8/25/07, Rating: -1
RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By LogicallyGenius on 8/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 1:33:28 PM , Rating: 1
Didn't you know? If you don't put money above everything you're a socialist, a communist, a tree hugger, a liberal, and a witch.

Now let's all kneel and pray to the ghost of Ken Lay.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By rsmech on 8/25/2007 3:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder how your children live when all trees die due to over heating


Where did this come from? There are too many people on both sides of this argument in this discussion to believe that emotional drivel.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Tafia on 8/26/2007 5:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
You not up to date with the latest NASA/GISS corrections to the GHCN? What global warming?


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By roadhog74 on 8/27/2007 10:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
I would suggest it's more the sensationalizing nature of
modern media, trying to fit everything into sound bites.

Environmental disaster - cause global warming.
bombs or human tragedy - cause Al-Queda or George bush.

It is more the 5 second news story and the desire to fill
the airwaves as cheaply as possible than some environmental
SIG pulling thousands of little strings.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By grenableu on 8/24/2007 2:28:30 PM , Rating: 5
> "What companies would honestly benefit financially from being forced to adding extra scrubbers to their plants and switch to alternative energies?? "

There are thousands of companies looking to get rich quick from the environmental scare, from bio-fuel startups to carbon credit suppliers to companies that sell "environmentally friendly" products.

Archer Daniels Midland alone has been raking in billions on ethanol, and has already been exposed as funding environmental groups in support of the ethanol-in-gas mandate.

And let's not forget the huge amount of funding straight from enviromental groups, who believe they're doing God's work, along with tens of billions straight from governments.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Ringold on 8/24/2007 5:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's not even just the start-ups and ag companies!

If environmentalists don't think GE, BP, Conoco, scores of old-guard engineering and various energy sector services companies arent standing ready to reap billions in profits from a government-mandated forced upgrade cycle then they must be living under a rock. Every industry loves a forced upgrade cycle! Especially when governments stand ready to shower subsidies. Many energy firms and utility companies already openly support congressional action to make America more "green"; many more probably do so covertly. These firms are some of the greatest capitalist companies in the world; did hippies really think they'd just bend over and take it? They've hedged their bets so they win no matter what happens.

Exxon is a minor exception; they recognized in the 80s or 90s they're possibly the best at getting oil on the market in the world and stopped trying to dilute their efforts, spinning off their solar division.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By bfonnes on 8/24/2007 3:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather breathe clean air. Who wouldn't?
But, how many people are willing to stop driving their cars or stop watching their tvs or heating/cooling their homes? I like the argument that says that we can developing alternative fuels and energy regardless of whether we think global warming exists or not... It never hurts to have a plan B anyway.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 3:25:53 PM , Rating: 5
CO2 has nothing to do - absolutely nothing - with clean air. Real pollution is a real problem, but that is no reason for us to waste our time and money reducing CO2, as long as we don't know that CO2 is actually a problem. Mixing them together doesn't make any sense at all.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Spivonious on 8/24/2007 4:25:17 PM , Rating: 3
The human body emits carbon dioxide when you exhale. Should we all be forced to wear special air filters when we breathe? How about plants, emitting all of that poisonous gas known as oxygen? Why don't we burn them all down because they're polluting the atmosphere.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By grenableu on 8/24/2007 1:39:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I read the first paper and was not terribly impressed.
And you know more than Ph.D. scientists doing research in atmospheric science, do you?

quote:
The Department of Energy is an ardent opponent of acknowledging global warming as it is currently headed by Samuel Bodman...My point is that the DOE would gladly fund someone who is challenging the validity of global warming
Oooh! Nice try at a smear job. But according to Steven Schwartz's web page, he's been funded by the DOE since Jimmy Carter was president.

quote:
to get a more balanced view ...consider whose dollars are backing the papers you read.
Over the past 20 years, $50B dollars have been given to fund scientists who believe in global warming. So far, what have they gotten? A few models that fail to accurately predict either past or future temperatures, and a set of data that shows global warming stopped almost 10 years ago.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By A5un on 8/24/2007 1:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But according to Steven Schwartz's web page, he's been funded by the DOE since Jimmy Carter was president.


Let's see, who's the Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to Bush now? Oh yea, that's right. It's John H. Marburger, former Brookhaven director since 1998. And what's Bush's stance on global warming? I think we all can see where this is going.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Tafia on 8/26/2007 5:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
Ermm.....wasn't James Hansen of NASA and long time supporter of Gore gifted $250,000 by the Kerry team?


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh.

Alright, we are going to have a competition about how many Ph.D. climatologists we know. I do know one personally, he currently works in meteorology, guest lectures and does research. He formerly worked at the NOAA. Now I admit I do not now any other ones personally. But this is not a question of how many weather friends you have.

My comment was based on what I read in the paper, based on my scientific understanding. And as I took enough college level calculus (3), linear algebra, discrete math, differential eqns. etc., I can get by. I also took a number of physics and chemistry courses. So basically, I read the paper and made my conclusions on my own AS I EXPLAINED clearly.

As to my "smear job" if you read on his page, he clearly did not begin to do his research on global warming until the Clinton Era. And facing funding cuts, I could definitely see him being "motivated" to look at the facts a certain way. If you deny this possibility you are being silly.

quote:
Over the past 20 years, $50B dollars have been given to fund scientists who believe in global warming


And what figure are you exactly refering to?

And your basis that the data generated by global warming research is flawed is based on recent articles by the author of this article, in all likelihood. Many of the current models are relatively accurate, though they admittedly don't have everything figured out yet. When you consider the complexity of the problem with human variables like population growth, economic trends, etc. it is pretty amazing that they are as good as they are. And is all this money purely spent to research global warming, or to research changes in climate and other scenarios that are very applicable to a broad range of climate changes, including those that have historically occurred?

And as to the money how many dollars did big oil and industry put into silencing this research?? I would hazard to guess it would be a far greater sum.

Let's face it, you will probably always believe global warming is a hoax, even when theres no ice caps left.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 8/24/2007 2:12:30 PM , Rating: 4
According the U.S. Senate, Global Warming activists have recieved since 1990 $50 BILLION in funding. Global Warming skeptics during the same period recieved a paltry $19 MILLION.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

-------
Chillin


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Bioniccrackmonk on 8/24/2007 3:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Nice link Chillin, I believe this calls for a BOO-YAHHH!!!!!!


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Jellodyne on 8/27/2007 11:14:19 AM , Rating: 2
1. Lots of scientists recieved money
2. The majority of them believe global warming to be a real issue.

Not sure I'm seeing a pro-global warming agenda in that. The fact is that the majority of informed scientists believe that global climate change is a real issue. If the anti-global warming people received >25% of the funding on this issue that's a huge bias towards those few researcher in terms of funding.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By theflux on 8/27/2007 11:53:30 AM , Rating: 2
1. Scientist needs funding to survive.
2. Scientist who is tasked to study "Global Warming" and says it doesn't exist loses funding.
3. Scientist doesn't survive.

Do you see the problem here?


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By masher2 (blog) on 8/24/2007 2:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
> " based on what I read in the paper, based on my scientific understanding. And as I took enough college level calculus (3), linear algebra, discrete math, differential eqns. etc., I can get by..."

Despite this, your stated objections are incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of the math behind the research. Schwartz did not use a linear model; he used a basic tenet of perturbation theory-- that by adding a small enough "perturbation" to an existing nonlinear system, the response will be linear. This is true for all physical systems from oscillating springs and falling objects to quantum mechanical processes. The process is (very slightly) similar to that in calculus, by which one adds successively smaller terms to reach a limit, thereby converting an inexact solution to an exact one.

Perturbation theory starts with that term, and uses it to gain a (usually nonlinear) solution. You can clearly see Schwartz's results in eq. (6), (10), (17) and (18) are nonlinear in nature.

In summary, simply because one skimmed a document and saw the word "linear" is no reason to discount its conclusions.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By grenableu on 8/24/2007 2:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you will probably always believe global warming is a hoax, even when theres no ice caps left.
The icecaps have been steadily melting for the last 10,000 years, ever since the last ice age. If anything, this DISproves that humans are causing global warming.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By josmala on 8/26/2007 10:01:37 AM , Rating: 2
9% per decade melting rate we had for few last decades.
STEADY melting rate from last ice age Means that you could walk across north atlantic from england to new york just 400 years ago.
Anymore nice claims.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By grenableu on 8/26/2007 10:26:23 AM , Rating: 3
Greenland's glaciers are only melting at the rate of 0.25% per century, and ANTarctic ice is actually increasing, not decreasing. Clearly something else is going on in the Arctic.

Honestly, you people that think "the arctic is melting so that proves we're responsible" really need to screw your heads on straight.

By the way, if the Arctic cap does melt entirely, that's going to be a great thing for us humans...it'll allow several new ocean shipping routes, saving us hundreds of millions of gallons of diesel fuel each year.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 1:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The icecaps have been steadily melting for the last 10,000 years, ever since the last ice age. If anything, this DISproves that humans are causing global warming.

Its a big relief to all of us that a conclusion can only be caused by one event. You've totally and scientifically ruled out than man may be exacerbating the situation.

Clue:
http://scientificmethod.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By porkpie on 8/24/2007 2:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The [DOE] is headed by Samuel Bodman, a former oil executive.
You mean the Department of Energy is being run by someone who actually has a background in the energy sector? OMG, what was the government thinking!

:rolleyes:


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Grast on 8/24/2007 2:40:14 PM , Rating: 5
Jason,

I believe that Michael Griffin Director of Nasa has addressed this issue of global warming the best.

"I have no doubt that global — that a trend of global warming exists." Michael Griffin

However, I believe his next comment is more direct to my comment.

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had, and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin

I believe that due to the polarizing aspect of this topic. That all research is being manipulated to either confirm or deny global warming. Whether you agree or disagree is a moot point. We as humans need energy to remain in our current technology level. Fossil fuel is the current only source of power which can meet that need. Period. Nuclear while in my opinion could be leveraged to reduce our need of fossil fuels is not a reality in the U.S. Lamenting over this situation is a waist of time.

I also believe that only humans in their great arrogance could believe that we can control/effect the environment of the Earth. The Earth has so many effects on climate. The realization is that we DO NOT have control over the climate of the earth. Even if we did have control, are we all arrogant enough to believe that we know the OPTIMAL climate for the earth. This relates to the comment by the NASA director. We humans do not have the clarity of mind, the focus of will, and the selflessness needed to determine what the optimal climate should be. We must all learn that as humans. We are selfish, tribal, materialistic, and see life has little value. The Earth like all things will balance itself out.

We have so many problems in this world which we can affect change. Let stop worrying about something we have no control and work on issues which we can effect.

Later...


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By SirLucius on 8/24/2007 2:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I wish I could uprate you. Excellent post.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 2:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have so many problems in this world which we can affect change. Let stop worrying about something we have no control and work on issues which we can effect.

QFT. This is a key point - we should focus our efforts on things that do matter - poverty, hunger, AIDS crisis, etc., etc. - instead of pissing away billions on some hypothetical, dreamed-up environmental crisis.

Great post!

I'm thinking we should bring a class action suit against Al Gore. Any legal theories about that?


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By Bioniccrackmonk on 8/24/2007 3:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
I find it ironic that you label Michael as a anti-global warming advocate based on what he reads and believes, but what about your self? Based on what I read in your post, it seems you would be one who is stuck on the global warming band wagon because you believe in the research that you read that follows along with what you believe. Grow up.

To each their own, read all the papers you want and research the money funding these papers and you will find someone is backing it that has an interest in it. Its the way of the world unfortunately.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By svenkesd on 8/24/2007 5:35:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
But for the rest of you people out there, just do some simple searches online, read the papers that come up, and look at the climate change that is occuring around you.


Please do not "look at the climate change that is occuring around you." Looking around is a horrible method for drawing scientific conclusions about anything. It reminds me of Pat Robertson who last summer decided global warming is happening because it was really hot for a few days.


RE: Accuracy=Questionable
By rsmech on 8/25/2007 3:39:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
look at the climate change that is occuring around you. The U.S. is experiencing record heat waves this year and very chaotic weather. Whether climate models are complex and accurate enough to figure out why this is happening is after the fact. It is happening right now and if you want evidence, just look around you.


From this statement you are TOTALLY missing the point. I believe the climate changes. I have never thought otherwise. What myself & others are saying is that we don't agree with the GW crowd as to the main cause being HUMAN involvement.

This is one fact that the GW crowd needs to understand. You portray us as not believing the climate is changing. WRONG, it's the cause we disagree with.

Who do you think the biggest contributors to the GW cause is? It's Governments from around the world, including the UN. It's about control, it's about being popular with the electorate. This is the perfect cause for the sheeple.

We both believe things are changing. You say just look around you now. I say look at the past, is it irrelevant to you. It shows climate has ALWAYS changes but this doesn't fit your buffet style of beliefs. Pick & choose those things that support your belief. The difference between us is that I can't say I don't believe in man made GW it's just that with the opposing sides I haven't been convinced yet. I look at all things. These articles are to show you that things aren't settled yet, THATS SCIENCE. NOT CONSENSUS.

Consensus- world was flat
Science- world was round

Consensus- Sun revolves around the Earth
Science- Earth revolves around the Sun

Consensus- Crisis, Global cooling in the 70's
Science- No crisis

Consensus- Crisis, Global warming
Science- Still under review


Still care...
By Tom Milhauz on 8/24/2007 12:55:13 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting update of last weeks read. At least someone is stating the other studies for balance...

Nevertheless, I think the "green" hype might be good, because we aren't really sure about anything just yet (if we'll ever be). Taking care is always better than doing nothing (once you're not overprotective, which today's world by no means is)




RE: Still care...
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 1:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taking care is always better than doing nothing

I disagree. While spending billions or trillions on a problem that doesn't exist may not have any negative environmental effect, it is an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars and probably has a negative effect on the economy due to the economic inefficiency it adds into the system. It is not unlike paying Company A to dig a ditch, and then paying Company B to fill it in.

I think it would be wiser to figure out if there is a problem at all first, then figure out if we can do anything about it, and then figure out what the plan would be, then implement it. The so-called environmentalists who are global warming advocates are demanding that we skip past the first of steps of reasoning and just implement a solution - any solution! This is based on some notion of a "tipping point" - again, for which there is no science - it's just like the cheesy used car salesman telling you that the "special deal" he offered expires as the end of the day.

Global warming advocates will soon be eating "humble pie," as which time they'll be smart enough to invent another environmental crisis to distract us and to keep the donations and grant money flowing.


RE: Still care...
By Tom Milhauz on 8/24/2007 2:04:40 PM , Rating: 1
As you surely raise a good point, the problem is, if we'll ever know the effect of CO2 surely enough to take accurate actions. There could be a study in 20, 30 or 50 years denying everything we might have at hand now. It may just be too late then...

If goverments say "we don't know anything just yet, do what you feel like", than we could have a serious problem. Many people just blindly believe politicians. I'm not talking greenhouse effect only. Look at the previous century in industrial cities or Chinas pollution these days.

I think that what we are doing now are just precautions. Even if a looot of money might be spend unwisely, it's at least enforcing better efficiency and people start to care more about the environment...


RE: Still care...
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 2:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
By why would we need to take action now anyway? What is so special about this point in time - 2007 - instead of, say 1997 or 2017 for example?

Also, please don't mix general discussion of pollution and CO2. The pollution we have/had in cities in the U.S. as well as around the world is real pollution. There is no question about the usefulness of reducing and cleaning up real pollution. The only question is whether we have to worry about, and whether we really have much control over, CO2 levels.

Regarding China, it seems like they are destined to repeat our mistakes, and the mistakes made by nearly every other developed nation.


RE: Still care...
By Tom Milhauz on 8/24/2007 2:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it takes time to implement the actions and do research on technologies...we're starting now because we are having the possibility - better marketing for brainwash and technology

Isn't CO2 part of pollution? I agree that there's probably no need to fight just one over the other...I wonder where those studies about other gasses are....nitrous oxide in the air and everyone would be happier...


RE: Still care...
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 3:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't consider CO2 pollution, do you? Not any more than O2, etc.


RE: Still care...
By Tom Milhauz on 8/24/2007 3:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
I said "Isn't CO2 part of pollution"...just A part...I would leave the, let's say normal, typical CO2 level in the air on Earth out of it. I'll stick with my very own Webster copy stating "pollution - the action of polluting, especially environmental contamination with man-made waste..." - according to that, CO2 is part of pollution. Of course, some level is normal in the air....


RE: Still care...
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 3:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, most CO2 is naturally occuring.


RE: Still care...
By Tom Milhauz on 8/24/2007 3:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
Most. I love this word...what about the rest?


RE: Still care...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/24/2007 4:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. Actually, 97.25% of all CO2 emissions are natural in origin...emissions that have been occuring not just for the last 100 years, but for many millions of years.

CO2 has been called "a critically important airborne fertilizer". It's by no means a pollutant, indeed its essential for life on the planet.


RE: Still care...
By Tafia on 8/26/2007 6:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
CO2 is part of pollution?

Oh my gawd.

Ask your science tutor for a refund.


RE: Still care...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/24/2007 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 3
> "There could be a study in 20, 30 or 50 years denying everything we might have at hand now. It may just be too late then..."

Too late for what? Even if global warming advocates are correct, there is no looming catastrophe at hand. The effects of global warming are are more likely to be positive, than negative. Longer growing seasons, fewer crop losses, a more mild climate.

The IPCC estimates a 40cm rise in sea levels (that's 4mm/year) meaning a few low lying regions may need levees 40 cm higher. A few areas will receive slightly more rainfall, a few areas slightly less. Some research indicates hurricanes may become slightly more frequent...other research indicates they'll become less frequent.

In any case, not the end of the world, nor anything even close to it.


RE: Still care...
By 3kliksphilip on 8/25/2007 11:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
It's good for us, though people in hot / cold countries could suffer from changing temperatures. As it's so hot and sunny in England at the moment, I'm happy if more days were like this. It also means that there are fewer people in Mcdonalds until the evening, meaning easier shifts for me! (Don't hate me, I am your slave)


It's the environment, stupid!
By nukunukoo on 8/25/2007 1:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Fine, CO2 emissions are not the culprit. So what are you naysayers saying? Continue to abuse our finite resources? Don't conserve because it does not matter all along? WE should be GRATEFUL (and our children's children too) that finally there is a growing worldwide CONSCIENCE of carefully using what we have. Big companies don't get it, more efficient use means LESS waste, LESS consumption and more recyclable resources (read: more available raw materials). That's GREAT for their bottom line, albeit not obvious immediately, but the middle and long-term advantages speak for themselves. Go ahead, forget the CO2/Global Warming/Environment issues, it's just unfounded anyway, start discouraging the already environment-conscious public, lets waste away what we have and leave little for the citizens of tomorrow! Are you happy now?




RE: It's the environment, stupid!
By Ringold on 8/25/2007 2:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
First day, first Econ class, the following should be said: "Economics is, in other words, the study of using finite resources..." -- or something along those lines.

Businesses do optimize to make the most efficient use of resources; lay down the Manifesto, and think about it. Less consumption of raw resources to provide a good means what? Improved marginal profit. What is the objective of any firm? To maximize profit. Thefore, indirectly, the objective of every firm is to be as efficient as it possibly can be while providing society with the goods and services it wants.

Along similar lines, raw commodity prices reflect no great shortage of resources in the world. They have been falling in general as of late, but one could still point out that they are in nominal terms higher than they once where -- yes, that reflects the fact that hundreds of millions of formerly impoverished people in Asia and the Indian subcontinent are through the miracle of capitalism and the consumption you rail against are in the process of joining the middle class.

There's no need to champion resources efficiency, nukunukoo. Every businessman in the capitalist world has already been worrying about it since long before any of us were born.

Might also keep in mind that about the only thing that distorts the efficient use of resources is government market intervention, too.

If your argument is instead that people should choose to consume less then I would have to knock the ball back in your court; please, explain how to reduce consumption without corresponding economic catastrophe, much less raise the worlds poor to a comfortable middle class, as every economist back to Adam Smith would like to know.


RE: It's the environment, stupid!
By nukunukoo on 8/25/2007 4:46:41 PM , Rating: 2
While I do agree with you that such is not an easy matter, CO2 Emissions/Global warming and Conservation are indeed separate issues. However, to the public at large they are a single, interrelated entity, I admit that this is the wrong conclusion and it is logically flawed but to the average Joe Consumer, finding out that the CO2 scare is 'debunked' (whether that is partially or entirely true) would psychologically legitimize his use of his 8-cylinder SUV just to buy a magazine at the corner store.

My point is this, it may be true that the impact of CO2 emission from manmade sources may be minimal, if not miniscule, but the World is still getting warm. In the end, its still all about how we address the issue and treat this earth. Rising oceans would decrease land mass and that means lesser resources, on the other hand, a new "mini ice age" would also decrease useable land mass. And unless the world population is on a decline, acting now is no overkill.

Call me a hippie if you like. I'm just to saddened by peers who say "Global warming by CO2 is a farce" and just acts as if their wasteful habits are justified since they can afford it anyway. True, I may be in the wrong discussion thread but just before I made my previous post, a colleague of mine brought my attention to this article and thread since she was trying to criticize my use of a fuel-efficient car, a greener PC and changing lightbulbs. Sadly, this is our Jane Public. My earlier response was a reaction to her line of thinking.

And true, squandering resources have been around since the beginning of time. Imagine this: you are trapped in a desert island with lots of food but no real source of drinking water except for a thousand bottles of bottled H2O that somehow was left there. By just looking at that large cache, you tell yourself "that's quite enough for me" and you consume it thinking it won't ever run out. Well, it will run out and the day will come when you wished you acted differently from day one. Day one. The problem is that its not a matter of "IF" we run out, its a matter of "WHEN". The fact that it's very likely that we won't be alive to witness that day is no comfort.

And when I talked about consumption, it may have not been quite apparent that what I meant was EFFICIENCY. I admit I did not explain myself well on that. But I do appreciate the valid points you raised in response to my hastily-acted post.


RE: It's the environment, stupid!
By TomZ on 8/25/2007 5:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
psychologically legitimize his use of his 8-cylinder SUV just to buy a magazine at the corner store

Your views are an example of what is wrong with the environmental activists today. You seem to feel this irrational desire to judge everybody else's consumption patterns and label them as inefficient, squandering, etc. Why can't you just live your life, and let others live their lives? If Average Joe in his SUV is not doing you any harm, then just buzz off and leave him alone.

Regarding global warming, there is nothing for us to do but adapt. I don't understand your call to action - it makes no sense - there is nothing we can do to stop it, slow it down, speed it up, etc. Nature/god are in clearly in control, we are not.


RE: It's the environment, stupid!
By Jellodyne on 8/27/2007 11:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
> If Average Joe in his SUV is not doing you any harm

I belive the theory is that Joe's unneccesarily gas consuming SUV usage IS doing harm, thus the attitude.

> there is nothing for us to do but adapt

Mars? Naw, lets put a base on Vaenus and Mercury so we can get a head start on that adaptation.

> Nature/god are in clearly in control, we are not.

That your conclusion after you've read all the relavent research? Or didn't you? Either way, and let me be clear on this point, idiot.


RE: It's the environment, stupid!
By TomZ on 8/27/2007 12:22:46 PM , Rating: 2
What harm are SUV's going, exactly? If you accept that cars are not evil - the only rational view - then there is nothing about SUV's that are evil either. Some drivers have more people and/or stuff to haul than others, and there's nothing wrong about that.
quote:
That your conclusion after you've read all the relavent research? Or didn't you? Either way, and let me be clear on this point, idiot.

Yes, it is the conclusion. If I am an idiot, at least I am a well-informed idiot, and unfortunately the same cannot be said about yourself.

If you look at the amount of CO2 that is human-created times the net impact that CO2 has on global warming, then compare that to what is naturally-occuring, the only rational conclusion is that humans are not responsible for anything except a tiny fraction. Poster a2yet gave a quick summary of the actual facts surrounding global warming, you may want to google some of those topics for more details.

Humans have adapted for thousands of years to the changing climate on this planet. There is no reason to believe that we will not continue to do so if the current warming trend happens to continue.


RE: It's the environment, stupid!
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 1:45:29 PM , Rating: 1
One extreme to the other.

Theory:
Lack of middle ground = lack of sensibility.

Example:
quote:
What harm are SUV's going, exactly? If you accept that cars are not evil - the only rational view - then there is nothing about SUV's that are evil either.


RE: It's the environment, stupid!
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 1:51:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You seem to feel this irrational desire to judge everybody else's consumption patterns and label them as inefficient, squandering, etc. Why can't you just live your life, and let others live their lives?

Clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependence


RE: It's the environment, stupid!
By TomZ on 8/25/2007 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
This article, and the naysaying, is not about pollution, energy use, or consuming natural resources. It is about global warming and CO2. You are obviously one of the many people that cannot understand that these are separate issues. In fact, many people believe in environmental bait-and-switch, which I think is what you're advocating. In other words, finally admitting that CO2 is not a problem, then saying well we need to work on these other things. Well, my response is, we are already working on these other things, because they are real problems, whereas CO2 is not.


I guess this explains why...
By grenableu on 8/24/2007 12:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming stopped in 1998. The cycles turned down, and the world got ready to begin cooling again.




RE: I guess this explains why...
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:21:04 PM , Rating: 3
You are obviously basing this "fact" on the post you read by the author several articles ago.

Additionally, this is a very questionable statement. You are free to have your opinion, however I question its accuracy as you are basing your opinion on a single paper which drew this questionable conclusion, which I doubt you fully read. This is not the consensus of the scientific community.

Even the global warming skeptics such as the authors of the studies mentioned in this article admit that the world is still warming slightly, today in 2007.


RE: I guess this explains why...
By grenableu on 8/24/2007 1:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
No, I'm basing this fact on what I read in the newspaper:
quote:
drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=...

Sure the "models" predict this will soon stop and the earth wil start warming again. But those models didn't predict this cooling before it happened. They had (as always) to be "retuned" when their predictions failed totally.


RE: I guess this explains why...
By Ringold on 8/24/2007 5:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
I was talking to a couple professional economist's at the BLS the other day just casually (I like to get degrees in Econ, not actually work in econ) and they made the comment I've heard many times before; if we were as accurate as climate scientists and meteorologists, there'd be no respect for the field at all.

And god help us all if Ben Bernanke's understanding of the macro economy (and its micro components) was on the same level as these climate researchers; we'd be back to chaotic, crippling 5-10 year boom-bust cycles.


RE: I guess this explains why...
By Tafia on 8/26/2007 6:07:45 AM , Rating: 2
THE Thirties was the hottest decade in the US in the last 100 years, not the Nineties or the Noughties.

Happened in Greenland too. Check NASA/GISS


RE: I guess this explains why...
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 1:27:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No, I'm basing this fact on what I read in the newspaper:

So it must be true!


Another good read
By Bioniccrackmonk on 8/24/2007 11:41:02 AM , Rating: 5
First, I have to say, is that I am surprised that no one has commented against you yet Mike. Usually when I read your blogs you have 1000+ responses all going against you. Regardless though, I enjoy reading your work and this is another piece that I have forwarded to my friends, via the url of course, so they can enjoy it as well. Keep up the good work man, work like this needs to be on the news, but we all know that will never happen.




RE: Another good read
By chaos7 on 8/24/2007 12:08:57 PM , Rating: 2
Another great article masher, keep up the good work. And I do wish stories like this were on the TV news, rather then all the uproar on the ill effects of Global Warming and how we are all doomed soon.


RE: Another good read
By hsoverma on 8/24/2007 1:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
Masher,

I just opened a dailytech account so I can comment on your reporting. I must admit that you do indeed produce some great articles and I really appreciate your work. I often forward links to your articles to my father who teaches middle-school earth science. He is always trying to get his students to look at mainstream ideas critically and from different viewpoints. (unlike when I was in school) Please keep it up!


RE: Another good read
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 1:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the sentiments you guys expressed - another good article. Especially with this topic, it is necessary to understand what is really going on.

I am so sick of reading article after article in mainstream media that treats human-induced global warming as a foregone conclusion. It seems like every other article I read having anything to do with weather has a few sentences stating that it is thought that whatever is being described is the result of global warming. These connections are being made by idiot journalists with zero scientific data or analysis.

So again, thanks Michael for opening up our eyes to the "real story."


RE: Another good read
By i4mt3hwin on 8/24/2007 2:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with the OP as well. Even if you disagree with his thoughts, it's still very interesting to read the other sides of the story. The best part though is the discussions that take place in the comments. I can't even recall all the knowledge I've gained over the last year or so keeping up with not only masher's blogs and comments, but the people opposing his views as well.

Great discussion and great article.


Regardless It's still good to be green
By AnnihilatorX on 8/24/2007 1:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Whether it's global warming or cooling, the efforts in to saving energy, recycle more; should continue.




RE: Regardless It's still good to be green
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 1:50:24 PM , Rating: 1
Saving energy, yes. Recycle more, depends. Are you aware of studies that show that many forms of recycling consume more energy and resources than using virgin materials? Recycling also wastes money, mostly taxpayer dollars, plus it raises the cost of many things we purchase due to recycling costs being passed along to consumers.

Therefore the most "green" thing, and economically sound thing to do, would probably be to landfill more of our waste and recycle less.

We have to stop making decisions based on emotion and what we "feel" is right, and instead set policies based on comprehensive studies. The way we approach decisions like this today is highly irrational. Recycling is mostly bullshit, but we all have this romantic notion that it's the right thing to do.


RE: Regardless It's still good to be green
By Spivonious on 8/24/2007 4:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yes recycling is more expensive, but I'd gladly pay more to have the landfills not be filled with plastic that won't biodegrade for 1000s of years. More things in the landfills just means more landfills.


By TomZ on 8/24/2007 4:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Are you worried about running out of space for landfills? That's also a non-issue.


By Tafia on 8/26/2007 6:03:58 AM , Rating: 2
And then more golf courses made over the top when they are full.

Kool


RE: Regardless It's still good to be green
By nukunukoo on 8/25/2007 5:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
TomZ, please dont say that recycling is *mostly* bull.

For example, in Third World countries, mining for aluminum, copper, iron and tin and separating them from the ores and impurities is much more expensive than simply melting aluminum and tin cans and copper wires (melting can also remove impurities).

Recycling also means reducing dependency on imports and creating jobs for these countries. Recycling is even cost-effective that many underground groups in China smuggle coins from Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia to extract the nickle from them. Recycling glass bottles are also cost-effective.

In Pakistan, they buy used paper products by the bulk, I have consulted with a firm in the UK that sends waste paper products to that country that sends more than 20 tons a month! Plastics, on the other hand is quite difficult to recycle, that is why it is better to manufacture biodegradable plastics and have them discarded.

On the other hand, recycling eWaste (old circuit boards, chips, monitor tubes, etc.) may not be sound since people use hazardous chemicals to extract the useable metals on them, which is a growing problem in rural India. You see,

Tomz, I seem to be getting the impression that you are against recycling as a whole when you said: "Recycling is mostly bullshit", you see, I work for a recycling consulting firm that helps Third World nations and if recycling was producing more waste as a whole, then we would have been out of business 19 years ago.


By Keeir on 8/26/2007 3:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
No offense Nukunukoo... but you just proved TomZ's point to me

Also, I think TomZ would be all for economically efficient recycling


CO2
By johnsonx on 8/25/2007 1:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
As I said in another post about another Masher blog:

"That's the day I knew Global Warming was a scam, the day they settled on CO2."

I think 'they' (the Warmers) knew all along that CO2 has little or nothing to do with climate change. They chose it because all human activity produces CO2, even breathing, so by demonizing CO2 they could guilt us all into compliance with their every demand.

Now that CO2 caused Warming is being debunked, they'll have to find something else. The first order of business will be to kill the messengers, but that won't work forever. We'll see what happens after that.




RE: CO2
By ancient46 on 8/25/2007 9:52:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully when CO2 has been successfully debunked we can start to work on the really harmful elements of pollution. Focusing more on reducing particulate emissions and cleaning up the major source of actual air pollution (i.e. Cow Farts) would be more cost effective than reducing CO2 emissions.


RE: CO2
By josmala on 8/26/2007 10:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
Everything produces CO2 and everything consumes CO2, the big difference is that the production and consumption where in balance before industrial revolution.Now we are putting more there than there is removal out of atmosphere, so concentration increases.

In history CO2 levels have fluctuated sometimes causing massive animal death. Sometimes not.

The key difference was time scale.

Lets make an analogy. You would most certainly want a 6.7MW power plant running for year putting energy to your city power grid. But you don't want a 50kiloton of energy in your city power grid released in fraction of second. Both have equal energy but not the same result.
And time frames fit the analogy, still we are about 100x faster than killing 95% of worlds species events are in CO2 production.


RE: CO2
By TomZ on 8/27/2007 6:24:13 AM , Rating: 2
CO2 is nothing to fear, and there is no evidence that suggests that fluctuation in CO2 levels has ever caused "massive animal death" or that CO2 is "killing 95% of worlds species." Where did you get these misguided notions from?

CO2 is a natural part of our environment, and in the past has been at much higher concentrations than now, way before the industrial revolution. Fluctuation of CO2 levels, and of temperatures, is a natural characteristic of our environment. There may be a tiny contribution due to human activity, but it is clear that natural changes or cycles are proceeding on their own without our ability to control them one way or the other.


RE: CO2
By dluther on 9/13/2007 3:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
People appear to have seized upon CO2 emissions in relation to global warming, but that is only a small part of the whole greenhouse gas theory.

CO2, along with ground level ozone (O3), methane, hydrocarbon gases, nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are the primary mixture of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that comprise the so-called "greenhouse gases" responsible for global warming.

GW skeptics know that focusing on CO2 emissions alone is useless, and I actually back Michael Asher's postulation that a global increase in CO2 may actually benefit the world.

However, GW proponents seem to have latched on to CO2 as the "primary" culprit for global warming, while either ignoring or discounting the role of the other VOCs I mention in their equation. Which is nonsense. GW isn't any one thing, it's a combination of all the things we do to make our environment unfit to live in.

What really leaves me completely stupefied is the GW skeptics' ability to suspend any form of common sense in their arguments.


Love the Picture
By SirLucius on 8/24/2007 11:49:04 AM , Rating: 2
I absolutely love the picture that accompanies this article! Wonderful choice.

That being said, this is a great story Masher, and hopefully this news will allow people to openly question global warming and what, if anything, we need to do about it. Too many people are just blindly following.




RE: Love the Picture
By 3kliksphilip on 8/25/2007 11:34:13 AM , Rating: 2
CO2 doesn't help with fires, which is what I think he was trying to show.


RE: Love the Picture
By TomZ on 8/27/2007 6:28:13 AM , Rating: 2
Huh?


to jasonmick
By meepstone on 8/24/2007 4:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Additionally, this is a very questionable statement. You are free to have your opinion, however I question its accuracy as you are basing your opinion on a single paper which drew this questionable conclusion, which I doubt you fully read. This is not the consensus of the scientific community.


I think the whole thing about this new paper is, what if the scientists are wrong and the world hasnt warmed as much as orginally thought, mick. Anyways, your very arrogant in assuming what you believe must absolutely be the truth and you dont have an open mind to something new.

We all could go back and forth about this scientist this and this scientist that. May I remind you that humans make mistakes and are not perfect. Either side could be wrong, not just the ones you dont support.




RE: to jasonmick
By TomZ on 8/24/2007 4:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, and I would add to that, there are many times in history when the consensus of scientists (and popular opinion) at the time were dead wrong.


RE: to jasonmick
By TheGreek on 8/29/2007 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
And they were tiny minorities that did a lot of damage as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy


Misleading
By A5un on 8/24/2007 12:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the paper is based on more accurate estimates of feedback processes in the Earth's atmosphere


I find this highly misleading. To say such modeling produces more accurate estimates of feedback process is to suggest that we have a complete understadning of the mirrors the true phenomenon. It suggests that we've already got a way to predict the feedback process. But wait! If we did, why are we still researching on the root cause of "global warming"? I think you meant the term "precise"




RE: Misleading
By A5un on 8/24/2007 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
scratch out the word "the mirrors". I had forgotten to delete that.


Why no peer review?
By jskirwin on 8/24/2007 1:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
I consider myself an AGW heretic, but why wasn't this paper published in a peer review journal?




RE: Why no peer review?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/24/2007 1:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Schwartz paper was accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research; the Lin/Sun paper was published in Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics.


OMGosh
By a2yet on 8/27/2007 9:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
You all are missing the point BADLY
people plants breath CO2 the more CO2 in the air the better plants will grow
the Biodiversity will increase (the greener the planet will be) and the more oxygen that YOU breath will be created. Why do you think ALL terraforming projects include pumping thousands of gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere before even introducing plants to create breathable oxygen, our earth has approximately 800 gigatons.
“Plants require carbon dioxide to conduct photosynthesis, and greenhouses “enrich” their atmospheres with additional CO2 to boost plant growth. It has been proposed that carbon dioxide from power generation be bubbled into ponds to grow algae that could then be converted into biodiesel fuel.”

Did you know on the graph everyone is familiar with (Al Gore totes it as “Proof”) the co2 increase actually comes after the warming ? not more CO2 then it gets warm, as you are lead to believe.
Look at the chart he uses for yourself!!!!!!!!!

Did you know sunspots have increased in number and are a Major source of heating on earth ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_...

DID you know that Mars is currently experiencing global warming ?
Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
What are we secretly shipping our SUV’s over there to boost CO2 ?
Or maybe the governments have secretly built an invisible pipe to mars to siphon off CO2 from earth
NOW there’s a conspiracy theory !!!!!!!!!!

DID you know that just 1 volcanic eruption can release more CO2 then humans can produce in 10 years at the current rate ? T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times.
These are just a few FACTS I have

I can include more if anyone even reads the bottom posts
wish I was the first one to post because the first guy to post has NO facts
there is NO FACT and NO Study that has ever been done to show the amount of CO2 produced by humans has had ANY effect on global warming. Only the theory that XXX of CO2 is produced by humans, and the temperature is now XXX warmer, this is NOT proof this is a theory !!!

LASTLY more plants then just mars is expiring global warming

Space.com: Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit
NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across -- or two-thirds Earth's diameter.

Space.com: New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton
There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless. "At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

.